Debates of Oct. 24th, 2022

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a believer in “better is always possible”, so I think more can be done. I think we need to look at this carefully.

I have a dear friend who is suffering from ovarian cancer. She is a doctor of veterinary medicine, and currently there is testing being done at the University of Guelph on cows that have ovarian cancer. In some cases, when there are no options available, I support testing on animals, but I think we have to do everything we can to find find substitutes and to only use this testing when it is absolutely necessary. I would like to strengthen that as well.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on the environment committee.

What piqued my interest is when she talked about working across the aisle and trying to do better things for Canadians and the environment by working with the opposition. I would ask her to consider this. How can we look across the aisle and work with the opposition when on a daily basis we get such a kickback every time we try to come up with an environmental initiative? It gets very frustrating, from my point of view. I would be interested in the member's thoughts on how we might be able to break through.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess hope is eternal and something is always possible. I know that at the environment committee, in working with members of all parties, we try to find common ground.

I do not want to have debates about whether climate change is real, as we are far beyond that, but I believe we can work together to try to move forward, because everybody feels that a heathier Canada and a healthier environment are good not only for Canadians but for all citizens around the world. I hope we can work together.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today as we debate Bill S-5, a piece of legislation that would make significant changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, otherwise known as CEPA. CEPA has not had any major modifications made to it since it was passed in 1999, so there are a lot of aspects of this bill that would have major impacts on the lives of Canadians and on industry, especially as they relate to certain substances and materials.

When people think of the word “legislation”, they expect wording that is clear and concise. Given that bills are eventually enshrined into our laws, it is reasonable to assume that much thought and intention has gone into the words that are being used, and that there is no opportunity for confusion or room for interpretation that could lead to problems for the government in the long term.

One part of the bill that falls under that category, in my view, is the right to a healthy environment, which is in the preamble and not in the legislation. I want to be clear that all of my Conservative colleagues and I firmly believe in and support the right to a healthy environment for each and every Canadian. We are so fortunate to live in a country that contains so many different ecosystems and is filled with natural beauty from coast to coast to coast. It is understandable that we want to be sure that our healthy environment is present and thriving all across the country, not just today but for future generations as well.

The challenge with this is that it is undefined. Having wording that is open to interpretation on such an important matter like this could create issues down the road. If this piece of legislation needs to be revisited years from now because of a lack of clarity, it will cost the taxpayer money. The ideal situation would be to add a definition now or when the bill goes to committee to ensure that we are not going to run into any issues and that there is clarity over what this important right really means.

We also want be sure that the use of vague terminology without a proper definition does not potentially lead to litigation. I do not believe that this is the intent of the bill, so this needs to be tightened up to provide absolutely certainty regarding the definition.

I bring this up because most Canadians watching this are expecting to see us around a table working out some good legislation. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying the “real role” of the opposition parties is to improve legislation and programming. Hopefully the government is prepared to make some amendments to this going forward, with consideration given to our feedback.

It sure sounds good in the media to say that this right is important and is a priority, but if there are no measures for progress and no benchmarks outlined in the legislation, how is anyone going to know that we have actually done the work? It seems like including the right to a healthy environment in Bill S-5 is more about getting a good sound bite than actually improving the lives of Canadians and our environment.

Another thing that I am concerned about with respect to this particular part of the bill is that it gives the minister two years to come up with an implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment, when we know that it took five years just to consult with the public. If this is an essential right, why is it going to take so long for the minister to come up with a simple definition of what this right looks like? To me, it cannot be a priority if it is going to take years to come up with a framework around the issue, let alone the time it would take to actually implement it.

Why does the government struggle so hard to do more than one thing at a time? This part of the bill is yet another virtue-signalling policy that does not do a single thing to help the environment and does a disservice to Canadians. What the Liberals do not understand is that this needs to be done correctly, transparently and in a timely manner, something we have learned the government is unfortunately incapable of doing.

Another aspect of the bill that I have some concern about has to do with plastics, specifically with the word “toxic” being removed from the title of the schedule but still being referred to everywhere else in the legislation. Again, this creates confusion and a lack of clarity for anyone who might read the bill going forward. It also seems to me that the time and money being spent on this would be put to better use if they were invested in things like recycling and clean technology, rather than vilifying an industry and product that every single person in the House uses every day.

Just think for a second about how essential plastics are in our day-to-day lives. The houses we live in, the cars we drive, the public transit we take and the technology that allows us to do our jobs, like phones and computers, all rely on plastic.

Plastics are also irreplaceable in many fields of medicine and science, and without them, we would not have had the necessary PPE that was used during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as things like IV lines, IV bags, intubation tubes, feeding tubes, syringes and valves, respirators and ventilators, oxygen masks, rehabilitation equipment and suction cups, not to mention the children's toys that placated families when they were sitting at home and isolated. While I understand that plastic is not perfect, it makes no sense that our government continues to vilify a product and an industry that continually makes our lives better and easier, and allows us to live as comfortably as we do.

I was fortunate to be given a tour of the Heartland Petrochemical Complex near Fort Saskatchewan while it was in its development stage, and as of July 5, it was officially opened. In fact, the Minister of Tourism and Associate Finance Minister was in attendance.

This polypropylene plant will generate 65% fewer GHGs than average global plants. It also uses air cooling and not water cooling, which reduces water use by 80%. This facility will result in food packaging, textiles, health care products, medical supplies and more. Furthermore, it is able to reduce GHGs as it now has two carbon capture and storage units, and it is building a third, thus protecting the environment. It avoids shipping propane via truck, train and ship to overseas producers who will create the plastic beads that are shipped back to Canada. This reduces emissions and the risk of safety issues. Let us not forget that this government gave $49 million for this complex.

I would like to speak to Senate amendments 17 and 18, which would create new obligations for industries that use living organisms in their work.

The new obligations would require both the minister and the industry to conduct private consultations for each living organism produced in Canada. I am no laboratory scientist, but I was a regulator at an industry for many years before becoming a member of Parliament. One thing that I firmly believe, based on that experience, is that the industry should regulate itself. As soon as the government starts getting overly involved, things start getting complicated to the detriment of the industry and the taxpayer, due to the extra level of red tape and the inherent cost associated with it.

While there are areas of Bill S-5 that do cut red tape, which I am certainly supportive of, these particular amendments would do the opposite by creating a redundant process. In my view, the government should be focused on making things clearer and more straightforward through the removal of these extra, unnecessary steps, rather than adding more. We know that the bill is not much more than an effort to modernize bureaucracy rather than one that is focused on environment policy, so I am unsure as to why the government would want to increase the burden for the industry, which already does a world-class job with its public consultations.

Furthermore, this additional step would not do anything to improve the already stringent safety measures that are used by the industry today. Doing double the consultation does not equal double the safety or protection against harm. It would also have the potential to set a dangerous precedent for chemicals in general, which is something that is a major concern. Ultimately, we need to realize that there are existing regulatory processes and practices in place, and that the people who are best placed to carry out these practices are the experts, the industry.

The last part of the bill that I want to touch on is the provision that would allow for any person to request the minister assess whether a substance is capable of becoming toxic. I believe it is essential that all appropriate safety measures are taken with respect to substances, but I have serious concerns that this policy could open the door for hundreds if not thousands of requests given the wide scope of it.

This government has a dismal record when it comes to clearing backlogs, as I am sure many veterans who have been waiting years for their disability benefits could tell us. The last thing they need is yet another backlog to clear, which would also likely come with financial implications and cost to the taxpayer due to the need to hire more people to assist in processing these requests. It is a mess waiting to happen, and I strongly encourage that this measure be reconsidered so that we can avoid yet another bureaucratic nightmare.

The fact of the matter is that, while this government tries to convince everyone that it is the ultimate champion of Canada's environment, it has missed every single emissions target it has set, and has only hurt hard-working Canadians through ineffective policies such as the carbon tax. My constituents have zero trust left in this government's ability to make life better for them, so I do hope that the Liberals will listen to the feedback given on Bill S-5 and make the necessary changes for this piece of legislation to do the job it is intended to do.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep talking about this as though it is as a government bill. I would remind the member that the burgundy shade on the screen where it lists the name of the bill, along with the S in front of it, means that it came from the Senate. It is not a government bill.

Nonetheless, the way the Conservatives are approaching this is that as we have to use so many plastics nowadays, therefore we may as well give up and assume that plastics are inevitably going to be as abundant as they are now forever.

Yes, I am aware, and I am sure most people are aware of the fact that just about everything in this room has some degree of plastic in it, but does that mean that we cannot at least strive for a better world? If we know that plastics are so bad, that the very first plastic ever created is still in existence today, and the harm they are doing to our environment, why would we not at least try to do better? Why can we not at least look for ways to do things differently, even if it means that today we are still going to be using plastic? Why can we not look toward a future that has less plastic in it? Would the member not agree that is a good thing?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, knowing the level of knowledge this gentleman has, I am sure he is well aware of the fact that the original legislation was put forward by his government back in the last Parliament and that the Senate has proposed some amendments to it. The unfortunate part is that, although some of the amendments being proposed may have good steps, some of them do not, and those steps need to be taken as we move forward.

With respect to plastics, I would agree with the member if someone had the knowledge to come up with another product, but at the present time we are moving propane and other dangerous chemicals via ship, truck or train, and putting the lives of Canadians at risk when we could actually be producing it here in Canada. We can produce these nice wee pebbles that can be used to produce many products that we need, such as the parts we need for our vehicles, our new electric vehicles, or other items we have in this country.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that commonsensical speech.

I know how important health is to him. I know how much he wants to see his children, his grandchildren and perhaps, with luck, his great-grandchildren grow up and be happy in a world where their health is not constantly at risk.

In his speech, he talked about wording that is vague and, yes, some of it is vague.

What suggestions would he make in committee to tighten things up so the bill is clearer and can be implemented more quickly?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on the government operations and estimates committee and what she brought to the committee.

She is right. I have two grandchildren, and I am so proud of them. My youngest grandchild is only four months old. I want to see them have something here as we move forward, and those are steps that need to be taken. That is what I think part of this legislation needs to have, and I love to hear comments on that from the Bloc and the member on the Liberal side who talked about working together. Those are the steps I think need to be done. We need to sit here, put those issues out there and banter back and forth, because that is what the public expects us to do and wants us to do.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He is a good friend. I really appreciated working with him on OGGO when he was our previous chair.

I am really grateful that my colleague voted for my Motion No. 51 back in 2018 to tackle plastic pollution and reduce plastics in our environment. He supported the banning of straws and different plastics. Does he not agree that we have a duty to ensure that, when there are chemical ingredients that are known or suspected to cause cancer or harm the reproductive or endocrine systems, it should be mandatory to require the labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products, which is what we are calling for in this bill? Would he support an amendment to support that?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, we need to look at the aspect of plastics as we move forward. I agree that there are steps that can be used to utilize that, but it ultimately comes down to people doing the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the intervention that was made previously was interesting. I just heard a comment in one of the questions from somebody who is often heard in the House about how this is not somehow a government bill. I would just like to put on the record that the government's representative in the Senate moved this bill. It went through that process in the Senate with some amendments, some of which are concerning. I am certainly now glad to have the opportunity to enter into some fulsome debate.

Being that I represent what many, and even I, would refer to as oil country, many would suggest somehow that I do not care about the environment. In fact, those accusations have been made in this place. I would like to set the record straight on a number of fronts. I care deeply not only about our environment, but also about our planet's future. I would emphasize that by articulating a couple of things.

One is that I am the fifth generation to farm in Alberta's special areas. For those who listening, and I am sure there are many, who do not understand some of the dynamics around farming, if one does not take seriously the responsibility for conservation, environmental preservation, land management and soil management, one does not succeed in farming, let alone survive six generations. I know that I am proud every moment I have my kids come and ride with me in the combine or the tractor.

Second, the next thing I would like to articulate is something that many in this place, I have heard throughout the course of this debate, would suggest that supporting Canada's oil and gas industry is somehow oppositional to supporting a strong environment. In fact, a comment was made earlier about how supporting a plastics industry in this country is somehow oppositional to supporting a clean environment. I would like to articulate very clearly how that could not be further from the truth.

I am proud to represent an area, as I said, that has a strong legacy of oil and gas production, much of which goes into creating not only the fuel that powers the planes we fly in and the vehicles we drive but also so many of the things in our lives that include petrochemical-based products. The fact is that in Canada, we have good environmental legacy on that.

Something that needs to be pointed out is that, in Canada, we are the best at talking about why we have the emissions frameworks and all of those other things surrounding it, so we can not only talk about being good on the environment, but also know that we are good on the environment. So many places around the world refuse to even account properly for their impact on the planet, whether the impact is of emissions, ground contamination or a whole assortment of some of the challenges that come out as a result. We have much to be proud of in this country.

It frustrates me. I do not exaggerate when I say that I hear daily from many constituents who are frustrated by the left's attitude. That is the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Bloc and the Greens. I hear how frustrated many constituents are at the ignorance that is displayed toward the standards that we have in this country.

As we approach Bill S-5 and some of the concerns I have surrounding a number of the regulations, and further concerns about some of the amendments that were made in the Senate, we need to ensure that we are talking to the stakeholders involved and not have unintended consequences by passing legislation that would change regulatory frameworks, which may not have immediate consequences but could have long-term implications, and not just for Canadian industry. We need to ensure we understand all the aspects of that.

I am so proud of how my constituency has stepped up when it comes to being an environmental leader around the world. To emphasize that, Red Deer Polytechnic, formerly Red Deer College, has a team that included a former constituent of mine from Stettler. As I was walking into the debate here, my constituency assistant sent me an article talking about how this former constituent was a part of a team that had won an award for how they were able to reduce emissions in the production of things like solar panels.

I have numerous examples of how there have been emission reductions in the energy industry and world-class quality products in terms of water management, being able to take even tailings pond water and make it so pure that it could be used for drinking water. There are so many examples, including carbon capture, utilization and storage. The fact is that we can have even carbon-negative oil in this country.

The reality is, and I will end on this, the world simply needs more Canada, whether it is our resources, our ideas or the standards to which we accomplish so much. Whenever we talk about the environment, I am tired of having to apologize for the fact that I come from an area of the country that knows how to do energy and agriculture well, both of which by their very nature are offensive to many.

We do them well. In fact, I would suggest we do it the best in the world. It is time for us to be proud of that, and not only within this place, but to make sure that we take those lessons learned and promote them around the world. If we do so, Canada and the world wins.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Citizenship and Immigration

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:44 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House will now resume debate on the motion to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there are many ways I could start my comments with respect to the debate on the motion that was moved earlier today after question period, but I want to highlight the importance of the day itself for a moment or two. One might think that I am going to talk about Diwali, because today is in fact a very special celebration. However, there is something else that should be highlighted, which is the fact that it was 77 years ago today that the Charter of the United Nations was formed.

When we think of the issue of human rights, the Liberal caucus believes in the future of the United Nations as a shining beacon for the world when it comes to the issue of human rights and dignity of the person. It is important that we recognize this and the fact that Canada is a charter member of the United Nations, which we should take a great deal of pride in.

In approaching the debate that we are having this evening, I do not want to do anything that would minimize in any fashion whatsoever what has happened to the Uighur people and the Turkic Muslims. The severity of what they have had to endure over the years is significant. Whether it has been individual countries or the United Nations that have looked into some of the things that we often hear about, we all take it very seriously. We all understand what is taking place and the issue of propaganda that is out there, so I do not want to take anything away from it and I will get back to this.

First and foremost, I want to talk about the reason we are having this debate today. The Conservative Party, over the last number of years, has used concurrence motions not as a way to raise an issue, as its members often try to imply when they bring forward the motions, but as a way to prevent debate on government business, which is why I asked the mover of the motion why he chose to bring forward this motion. In his response, he said that, if things had taken place in the foreign affairs committee, he then would not have had to move this particular motion.

I will talk about Bill S-223 in regard to the illegal harvesting of organs, as members of all political parties have supported that legislation. However, what we see is a Conservative Party that is in every way trying to prevent the government from advancing important legislation.

It is just like we saw moments ago with Bill S-5. Members will recall that last week we were ready to debate Bill S-5, but the Conservatives moved a motion of concurrence to talk about yet another issue during Government Orders on a day when there was government business. They will not move one tomorrow because that is an opposition day, but today is a government day. Therefore, they moved a motion to have the debate on the Uighurs and Turkic Muslims and what is taking place in China. Why? It is because they do not want the government to advance important legislation

I cite Bill S-5 because the Conservatives are actually voting in favour of it, even though last week they tried to prevent it from being debated. Again, today, they tried to prevent it from being debated. The government suggested that we have 20 minutes or a half an hour of debate on the issue and then continue the debate after the House finished government business at 6:45 p.m.

I do not say this lightly. It could be said that the most precious commodity we have inside the House of Commons is time. There is never enough time to debate all the things that need to be debated inside the House. A good example of that is Private Members' Business, let alone government legislative business and all the demands on it.

If we are going to debate human rights, which in essence is what the Conservative Party wanted us to debate today instead of debating Bill S-5, which they support, there are other issues we could have debated regarding human rights. I am thinking of what is happening today in Ukraine. There have been so many allegations, substantiated in many ways, of things like torture, rape and mass killings. Defining “mass” is another challenge in itself, but that is something that is taking place today in a war in Europe.

I suggest that on a human rights scale, much like dealing with the Uighurs and the Turkic Muslims, it is an important issue. Both deal with human rights issues. If the Conservatives really wanted to have a debate on human rights, I think what they should have done was bring forward an opposition day motion. Had they done that, they could have highlighted a number of different issues.

Depending on where one sits and the area one might represent, one might bring a different perspective of human rights and what is happening around the world. If someone were to ask me to pick an area that I would like to talk about when dealing with human rights today, there is no shortage of areas. I think one of the areas that we could definitely give more attention to would be to what is taking place in Ukraine. What about the Iranian refugee situation, where protesters have been killed, not dozens but hundreds? Allegations of all sorts are taking place there. I suspect we would have had members in the House standing and wanting to talk about that. There are so many people, so many MPs, who are still touched by people like former Senator Dallaire and what took place in Rwanda. Others might want to go back to World War II and the genocides that took place.

What we see around the world is truly amazing. One would think we would learn from it. That is the reason why I say the future is the United Nations. That is something the government of the day works with every day. We have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Foreign Affairs who actually sent out a release. If it had not been for that release, I do not think I would have realized that it was the 77th anniversary of the United Nation.

It is through those multilateral relations, an alliance of like-minded nations, that we are going to be able to make the world a better place for humanity into the future. At the end of the day, I would have preferred to have that type of debate on the floor of the House of Commons during an opposition day motion or even a take-note debate this evening. The Conservatives could have raised the issue and said, instead of moving concurrence on a report, let us have a take-note debate on human rights violations and put in the request for what they wanted emphasized.

We are very aware of what is taking place in China. Today and last week, I presented petitions regarding the illegal harvesting of human organs. I made reference to the fact that there are well over a million people around the world who have signed a petition calling upon governments at all levels to recognize what is taking place with the Falun Gong. These are the types of things that should be debated and need to be debated. I do not question that, but there are forums for us to ensure that takes place.

Where I take objection is when the official opposition, in the name of debating human rights, brings forward a concurrence motion in order to prevent substantial legislation from being debated. That is what we see from the Conservative Party time and time again.

The Conservatives have sent a message through their behaviour on Bill S-5, even though they support it. The message is that, if the government wants to pass S-5, it is going to have to go to the NDP or the Bloc, and the NDP or the Bloc are going to have to support us in bringing in time allocation. Otherwise, the Conservatives are going to continue to filibuster, unless we shame them a little.

That is the reason we are having this debate this evening. It is not because there was a consensus among all parties to talk about human rights, but rather because of an irresponsible opposition that will do whatever it can to try to frustrate the legislative process during government business.

If we look at the substance of the legislation, Canadians having a right to a healthy environment is within the legislation description. We could talk about other pieces of legislation. There is legislation that would provide children 12 and under the opportunity to have access to dental care. We could also talk about supporting renters by making their rent a little more affordable.

Conservatives do not want to have those debates because they oppose them. I believe they oppose that legislation. Maybe we can take that into consideration, at least in part. The Conservative Party likes to say it is a minority government and it has a responsibility, but so does the official opposition. The official opposition also has a responsibility to ensure there is some functionality inside the House. They were not elected to prevent all forms of legislation and hold them up.

I understand what it means to be in opposition. For over 20 years as a parliamentarian, I was in opposition. Hopefully, I will get that same time in government. The point is that, as an opposition party, the Conservative Party has fallen off track by believing everything it does needs to be obstructive and prevent the government from being able to pass anything, whether it is good or bad. This is until it comes to a point in time where the Conservative Party is embarrassed and shamed, or maybe even, like with the GST, it actually changes its opinion and supports the legislation. In fairness, there have been a couple of instances where that has taken place.

I would really encourage the Conservative opposition, when it says it wants to debate something, to allow that debate to take place. If there is something its members would ultimately like to see take place and they feel frustrated by government, there are other alternatives and other tools.

When we talk about the Uighurs and Turkic Muslims and what is happening to them, we need to get a sense of what it is, because most people do not necessarily have that understanding. They hear there are issues surrounding human rights violations. With a very little amount of research, one can easily get an appreciation on the types of things we are actually talking about.

It is estimated the Uighur population is in and around 12 million people. If we put that into the perspective of Canada, Canada has 38 million people. Imagine 12 million people, and I have not done the math but I suspect it would be all of western Canada plus, being suppressed and all sorts of violations taking place against human dignity and against basic human rights.

We often hear of the issue of genocide. We often hear how the government of China is in complete denial, saying it is more about propaganda by people who are against China. We see the results of other nations, the United Nations and others, that have been working with and listening at the ground level. When we talk about the uniqueness of the Uighur people and the degree to which it is getting the necessary attention worldwide, I think the world could be doing more. There is a need for us to collectively work within the United Nations and with other like-thinking allied countries to continue to put pressure on China.

I made reference to the Magnitsky act, which is legislation the United States first brought in based on what took place in Russia many years ago. It is the idea of sanctions and the idea of the world recognizing this. Many other countries, including Canada, have actually adopted similar legislation, recognizing there is always room for us to do more.

I will continue to do what I can. I would encourage members of all political entities to recognize what I suspect is a common value Canadians share: our rights, which are embodied in our Charter of Rights. Our Charter of Rights and the rule of law are things that matter to Canadians, and we should be sharing these with the world.

With those few thoughts, I appreciate the time to speak.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was, bar none, the worst speech in this context that I have ever heard delivered in this place. The member—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You were not here for it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

May I remind hon. members that we do not mention presences or absences in the House.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona seems to be unaware of the fact that we can watch a speech from outside of the chamber itself.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I just ruled that we do not mention presences or absences. We do not need to elaborate on the subject. Could the hon. member just continue with the question, please?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were discussions among parties beforehand. There was an agreement to adjourn this debate to the evening, so it would not take place during Government Orders' time in the hope that we could have a substantive conversation about the fact that, in the world's second-largest economy, the government is committing an ongoing genocide.

Instead of addressing those very real issues, the member chased all kinds of rabbit tracks, asking why we were not talking about other issues. However, when we talk about those other issues, such as the last time we had a concurrence debate on Ukraine, the member said we should not have been talking about that either. Every time we try to raise these human rights debates, this member has some reason to suggest why we should not be talking about them. Meanwhile, we have an agreement among parties to discuss this in the evening, and then he comes in the evening after the time normally set aside for Government Orders and he still complains about the fact that we have a concurrence motion going on.

This is an extremely serious issue. We have people from the Uighur community in Ottawa advocating this week. This is an issue that requires urgent discussion. Could the member find it in his heart to spend some time learning about the issue and actually speaking about the issue, instead of all this gobbledegook nonsense?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in many ways the member is wrong and misleading the House.

If we take a look at it, the member knows full well what he is doing if a member says well in advance he is going to bring forward another concurrence motion, as the member did last week, in order to prevent debate during government business. The member would not stand up on a concurrence motion during an opposition day. Maybe the member could tell the House when he has stood up during an opposition day on a concurrence motion.

I have been around far too long to be manipulated by that member or other members who try to give an impression that is misleading to Canadians and exploiting the issue of human rights. That is in fact what the member is doing.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I have to disagree with my colleague about the timing of this discussion. As I listened to him, I wondered how many more people have to be raped and abused in concentration camps and how many more organs have to be stolen before we realize it is time to adopt this motion so that 10,000 to 15,000 people can have the rights enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and see their children grow up and live with hope.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I said at the very beginning, this is not about belittling or trying to minimize the severity of the issue.

The issue is all about time management in terms of what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. If we were to follow the logic that some might try to say, which is that we need to have more debates, it would be virtually endless. For example, if we say we would have an additional 20% across the board, on opposition days, government days, to have more debate time on human rights issues, then I would be a little more sympathetic. However, to try to give the impression that what is taking place this evening inside the House is going to have an impact on what is such a critically important issue is somewhat disingenuous.

If we really and truly believe that, then why was it not suggested in a take-note debate or an opposition day motion. Then there would have been more debate on the issue.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!